Saint Mary's College General Education

The Committee met in the parlor of Holy Cross Hall with faculty from Biology, Music, Religious Studies, and Sociology. The four different models for SMC General Education (1.0) were discussed. A summary of that conversation appears below. Afterwards, the committee met among itself to finalize preparations for the General Education lunch on February 26th.

---

Those at the meeting were first asked to provide feedback to the four models previously distributed.

The first topic discussed was the role of Catholicism in these four models. A faculty member expressed concern that the stated connection between general education and the mission of the College, in particular, our being a Catholic college, risked being lost in all of the models. Another responded by asking whether it wasn’t there in the belief & reason category? If we’re going to have categories like this, then everything has to go somewhere and has to be named. Still, in doing this, we shouldn’t give the impression that responsibility for Catholicism is confined just to the Religious Studies Department. That is something that should be more widely taught. There should be a broader sense of Catholicity in the vision statements of these models so that people who look at us for that will find something.

A question was asked whether general education = the liberal arts. A committee member stated in response that general education = what all students take. Question: is it like a core curriculum? Response: not unless we make it one. Rather, it’s distributional as presently articulated. At this point, it’s a structured menu of courses.

“General education” should also be distinguished from a “core curriculum.” Perhaps PHIL 110 + RLST 101 should be considered the Saint Mary’s core. Still, these courses don’t have exactly the same reading lists and so are not true core courses. There followed a discussion about whether a core curriculum would be a good idea. One perceived downside is that faculty would have to teach out of their areas of specialization. Another is that students would lose a great bit of freedom to choose their courses.

A faculty member asked what are we trying to fix in general education and what is the student perception of this requirement? A committee member then related some ideas that came up in the previous Monday night’s meeting with the SAC. At that meeting, students voiced several things they wished to be different about the current general education program. Some voiced frustration at having to take 100-level courses as seniors. Could this be changed by having students take 300-level classes which would count for their general education? This might work in some instances; but in others would not work because of prerequisites to those upper-level courses that these students wouldn’t necessarily have taken. Perhaps a distinction can be made between introductory courses and introductory courses for first-year students. Maybe departments can have introductory courses for juniors and seniors. And perhaps this could be accommodated by dropping the word “introduction.” So instead of “Introduction to Sociology,” for example, a course for juniors and seniors could be called “Sociological Explorations.” Another point that came up in the meeting with SAC involved incorporating the professional programs and life-skills courses. There was general agreement that that was a good idea by the faculty at today’s meeting. But would there be adequate staffing for this? Since professional programs have external accreditation, they may already be maxed out in teaching what needs to be taught for that accreditation. How could their teaching responsibilities increase to staff general education courses? Another thing that came up in the SAC meeting was the value that students attached in learning from other students. Perhaps there could be a mentoring arrangement worked into general education whereby first-years would be partnered with juniors or seniors? As to why there is a problem with general education at Saint Mary’s, there is no discernible connection between the College’s stated purpose in general education courses and the actual requirements. Without that connection, choices that students make in ignorance of the stated purpose are not truly free choices. So there is at least a need to articulate what we’re trying to do and how the requirements fit it. Another faculty member asked if the SAC students wanted general education overhauled. The Committee responded that that wasn’t their impression at all. In fact, many positive comments were made about the current program. Many voiced appreciation in being forced to take different things, and some mentioned “aha” moments when they saw connections across classes.

A faculty member said that she had spoken with a student who was at the SAC meeting who was afterwards upset with the meeting. Moreover, our sample was flawed since SAC members are not typical students. In response, committee members noted that we were not polling students at this meeting, merely getting some initial responses. Also, we would need later on to contact a more representative portion of the student body.

We talked about Saint Mary’s being unique, but how is our general education really unique? A committee member responded that at the moment, it’s not unique at all. It is not well coordinated with our Mission Statement. This raises the issue of assessment—we don’t really have a clear idea about what it is we’re doing or how well we’re doing it. We haven’t changed the SMC general education requirement since the 1970s. Perhaps that means that it’s really good and so shouldn’t be changed. But maybe change is helpful for the sheer stimulation of doing something new and different. Students almost universally like tandems, and the kind of integration across disciplines that goes on there is a meta-goal for all general education classes. But our general education program doesn’t force us professors into interaction with our colleagues. The Committee was encouraged to be more distinctive and to match some of the rhetoric in the vision statements with concrete points in the structures. For example, some models mention women’s education, but the models don’t do enough to foreground that. Rather than focus on the “self” (Model A and Model C), the models should focus on the concept of identity. That would be a way to tie these models more specifically to women and gender issues. Similarly, the emphasis on global citizenship was appreciated, but what was missing is more forward thinking about what that means. The world’s centers of power and influence are moving towards Asia, and there is nothing in the models that seems to appreciate that. Moreover, if we emphasize communication skills, we need to include something about media literacy as a crucial skill for twenty-first century students. Committee members asked what changes in structure might address these concerns. One response was to incorporate something from the Sisters’ webpage/literature. The sisters are present in the world as women of conviction. Perhaps we can learn from how they present and live what that means. This could be incorporated into the vision statements and make them truly forward looking. But, another faculty member questioned, is that really necessary if the vision statements mentioned women, thereby seeming to already bracket the ensuing structures in ways specific to women? A response to that was that way of proceeding didn’t adequately emphasize the uniqueness of the education for women, etc. Another person asked if the Committee had employed any of the STAMATS research, especially that portion of it that mentioned the high value for more classes relating to diversity. The Committee has not specifically consulted STAMATS.

There followed a discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the various models.


Model A: Some issues with wording were raised. Do we “train” in dialogue, or “grow” in dialogue? (There was support to get rid of the notion of training.) Does general education “prepare” students, or does it “equip” students? Should dialogue be with “beauty” or with the “arts”? A possible tension here is that beauty is a word more at home in a Catholic context (truth, goodness, and beauty); but if the Catholic context didn’t come through as fully as it might, then removing the mention of “beauty” doesn’t help that problem. Should we “negotiate” cultural differences or “appreciate/embrace” them? A faculty member said that Model A wasn’t as self-critical as the other three models, and this person thought that was a deficit; though another said that he liked the three categories in Model A better than those in Model B. The phraseology was more active in the former than the latter. Also, Model A puts skills in a particular context, because skills as skills can be used for good or bad. Model A wants those skills developed along the lines of mature judgment and moral courage. Saint Mary’s, said one faculty member, is about more than just skills.

Model B: Both Model A and Model B speak about oral skills, but is that a central part of general education? Perhaps this is something that could be fulfilled through the presentation accompanying one’s senior comp? There are oral proficiency requirements in many classes already. Then maybe the challenge is how to make sure that students are all getting the same thing as they take different classes. There was agreement that speaking about communication skills as more than just writing was a good idea.

Model C: A question was asked what we are envisioning in the core sequence in Model C. A committee member responded that this would have something to do with women as learners, and women as world citizens. Specific topics could change from year to year. There followed an explanation of the other three components of the core sequence in Model C. The Intercultural dialogue seminar would address diversity and intercultural learning. Learning through action could go back to departmental requirements for internships, experiential learning, etc. Finally, the interdisciplinary seminar can be defined differently depending on what the professor teaching it is interested in. The committee was asked about staffing implications for Model C. Who would teach the core courses? The response was that Model C didn’t require more courses than the current general education requirements; and so if there was interest in this model by both faculty and administration, a way to staff it could be found. A question was asked about the timeline for the Committee’s work. We hope to have a model by the end of this year and work on the nuts & bolts of implementing it next year, with rollout in academic year 08-09. A faculty member said that Model C was his least favorite, and Model D his second-to-least favorite. He judged Model C not as well organized as some of the other models. Another said Model C seems to give just a course in intercultural studies, and that wasn’t enough. The discussion then briefly turned to first-year seminars, which are wonderful if done well; but students hate them if they’re not done correctly. Model B would make student cohorts not in first-year seminars, but in tandems, which can give many of the same experiences.

Model D: There was a concern expressed that we don’t have adequate staff to train students in global issues and that we can’t do this at Saint Mary’s at this time. If this is to be done, it will take the commitment of the whole College. For example, Grinnell takes their faculty abroad if they want to teach about other cultures. If we’re truly going to be global, we need to have ways to train faculty and do these sorts of faculty development sorts of things.

---

Any comments on the models or on any of the other issues discussed above can be posted below by anyone from the community.